3 ms·

This has been debunked numerous times at this point. Here is a fun to read debunking: http://m.nautil.us/blog/impossibly-hungry-judges http://m.nautil.us/blog/

This has been debunked numerous times at this point. Here is a fun to read debunking: http://m.nautil.us/blog/impossibly-hungry-judges http://m.nautil.us/blog/impossibly-hungry-judges

gruez 5y ago
This seems a bit handwavy to me. It essentially boils down to "the effect size is too big" but doesn't give alternative explanations. Calling that a debunking is a stretch.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  > It essentially boils down to "the effect size is too big" but doesn't give alternative explanations. Calling that a debunking is a stretch. No, it isn't. The effect size claimed is a one hundred percent reduction in the judges' willingness to acquit. Pointing and laughing is a perfectly reasonable refutation of that. There's a reason the specific number is only ever cited by people pointing out that it's impossible.
  - blowski 5y ago
    The report is at least citing some statistics, whereas the counter-argument seems to be using intuitition that it "doesn't seem right". That's hardly a debunking.
    - ivanbakel 5y ago
      But the point is that just "citing some statistics" isn't an argument. Justifying an extreme claim requires extreme proof. Drawing conclusions from data requires human input, and human input can include "this is clearly false".
      - blowski 5y ago
        Doesn't seem like an extreme claim to me, and thus we find ourselves both using our own pre-conceived ideas to "confirm" what we already knew. I would say that it certainly highlights the need for more evidence, but it's not proof to the contrary.
        ivanbakel 5y ago
        >Doesn't seem like an extreme claim to me The Nautilus article gives many examples of effects which would have a similar statistical significance to the one presented in the OP. Which ones do you think are equivalently significant in reality to the effect of meal times on judicial sentencing?
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
- praptak 5y ago
  There is an alternative explanation that the cases are assigned to time slots based on their caliber. It makes sense to hear more serious and difficult cases earlier.
- dimitrios1 5y ago
  > This seems a bit handwavy to me The article gives a statistical measure of the sheer impossibility of such a large effect. That is the opposite of handwavy. > It essentially boils down to "the effect size is too big" For this type of effect, yes. Again, the article gives a comparison of what a large effect size looks like for comparison, to help grapple with the sheer impossibility. > but doesn't give alternative explanations. Alternative explanations aren't a necessary pre-requisite for debunking a theory. > Calling that a debunking is a stretch. To the contrary, this article perfectly illustrates what a stretch it is to claim the large negative effect the absence of lunch has on a judge's ruling.

This has been debunked numerous times at this point. Here is a fun to read debunking: http://m.nautil.us/blog/impossibly-hungry-judges http://m.nautil.us/blog/impossibly-hungry-judges

gruez 5y ago

This seems a bit handwavy to me. It essentially boils down to "the effect size is too big" but doesn't give alternative explanations. Calling that a debunking is a stretch.

thaumasiotes 5y ago
> It essentially boils down to "the effect size is too big" but doesn't give alternative explanations. Calling that a debunking is a stretch. No, it isn't. The effect size claimed is a one hundred percent reduction in the judges' willingness to acquit. Pointing and laughing is a perfectly reasonable refutation of that. There's a reason the specific number is only ever cited by people pointing out that it's impossible.
- blowski 5y ago
  The report is at least citing some statistics, whereas the counter-argument seems to be using intuitition that it "doesn't seem right". That's hardly a debunking.
  - ivanbakel 5y ago
    But the point is that just "citing some statistics" isn't an argument. Justifying an extreme claim requires extreme proof. Drawing conclusions from data requires human input, and human input can include "this is clearly false".
    - blowski 5y ago
      Doesn't seem like an extreme claim to me, and thus we find ourselves both using our own pre-conceived ideas to "confirm" what we already knew. I would say that it certainly highlights the need for more evidence, but it's not proof to the contrary.
      - ivanbakel 5y ago
        >Doesn't seem like an extreme claim to me The Nautilus article gives many examples of effects which would have a similar statistical significance to the one presented in the OP. Which ones do you think are equivalently significant in reality to the effect of meal times on judicial sentencing?
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
praptak 5y ago
There is an alternative explanation that the cases are assigned to time slots based on their caliber. It makes sense to hear more serious and difficult cases earlier.
dimitrios1 5y ago
> This seems a bit handwavy to me The article gives a statistical measure of the sheer impossibility of such a large effect. That is the opposite of handwavy. > It essentially boils down to "the effect size is too big" For this type of effect, yes. Again, the article gives a comparison of what a large effect size looks like for comparison, to help grapple with the sheer impossibility. > but doesn't give alternative explanations. Alternative explanations aren't a necessary pre-requisite for debunking a theory. > Calling that a debunking is a stretch. To the contrary, this article perfectly illustrates what a stretch it is to claim the large negative effect the absence of lunch has on a judge's ruling.